[LemonJam]

Seen a couple of posts recently about Dan's gameplay (Swearing on his wife and the bible) and wondered what peoples stances were in strategic games like these and how far can you take it and still be able to say "it's a game."

Perrrsonally I'm not really offended about things (lying where necessary, being stabbed in the back or breaking a deal). I think swearing on the bible and going back on it makes you look weak in your religious beliefs but I wouldn't hold it against someone in a jury vote.
I think if someone asks you to swear on your family then that's messed up enough in the first place. I'd personally refuse to swear on a life but would probably swear on my house/apartment or something. :P

I think where I draw the line is lying about illness, particularly cancer as that's something that's affected my family pretty greatly, so I don't think I could vote for somebody who did that.

All this being said, I think I'd generally be more likely to vote for someone who played an honest game, just cos.

WHAT ABOUT Y'ALL?

[reece(:]

I'm not a huge fan of swearing over bibles, children etc cos usually it means bull****. I'd take someone's word and once they've went back on it, "they'd be dead in the game to me".

[lostalex]

I think there is a difference between good strategy, and cruelty.

Russell was cruel, and that's why he never won. I think Dan was a bit cruel to Britney. Refusing to talk to her, even to look at her. It was a side of Dan i did not like.

It is a fine line, but i think we all know when someone has crossed that line. I supposse the line is different for everyone though.

I suppose if you win, you'll never think about it again, all you'll remember is winning. But for those in your wake, all they will remember is the betrayal.

I'm not religious, but i do know what religion means to some people, and to exploit that, i do think is cruel. I don't have a family of my own yet, but i do know what it means to many people, and i think to exploit that is cruel.


I think being cruel is taking it too far.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Obviously there are going to be some people who will come here and say that it's unfair to judge people from a personal standpoint and that you should vote on gameplay 100%, but when you're the situation and you're affected by it, it's different. If you don't like someone, you're not going to reward them with half a million (or a million dollars in Survivor.)

So with that said, I think a big amount of it has to do with how you're affected by it.

[SoBig]

Dan swore on the bible that everything that he told Frank about the QUACK PACK and IAN was the TRUTH. It did not happen like it was edited on tv. That convo was about 30 minutes long. That final 2 deal happened about 25 minutes after Dan swore on the bible.

Originally Posted by lostalex

I think Dan was a bit cruel to Britney. Refusing to talk to her, even to look at her. It was a side of Dan i did not like.

Dan did talk to her.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt6...two_shortfilms
8:00 mark

Britney was edited like a saint. They left out the part where she was planning on getting Dan to throw the POV comp so that they could vote him out, not save him. They left out the part where she was trying to turn Danielle, Shane and Ian against Dan. They left out the part where she was constantly throwing Dan under the bus to Frank. They left all of that out.

The night before the POV comp. Britney told Danielle to get Dan to throw the veto comp so that Shane or her wouldn't go up as replacement noms. Dan caught Danielle in a lie and started to piece things together. During the veto comp when Frank told Brit an answer and Danielle took some points that would have given Dan the win. He knew they turned on him. Frank confirmed everything to him during that convo that they had.